FatMan

You're right, there's not many good ways to carry it out. I can't fault you on that. My two main gripes are TFL lying about it and the insider trades taking place. TFL lying is par for the course, but I really think it's important to hold the insider traders accountable.

yes and yes, but why the personal attacks and baseless accusations on me and my validator opportunistically profiting off doing our duty to protect the network? it's hard to know who did profit as the group quickly expanded and the information run amok and logs won't help

You have been personally attacking me, making fun of my sources, outright lying, and spinning things in TFL's favour for the past several weeks. I'm not personally attacking you, but I must say that I highly doubt your integrity based on the things you do & people you frat. with

I've only attacked your premature inference and jumping to conclusions Can you give examples where I've lied, I'd like to see I've not made fun of your sources, at most I've called it hearsay, which technically they are I just offer alternative interpretations

'Alternative interpretations' is another lovely spin - remember when you called my Kernel Labs deductive thread (leading to tax evasion) 'jumping to conclusions' despite Korean tax officials literally fining them for tax evasion? Infuriating, but you're good at what you do NGL

alternative interpretations is a valid concept, ask any data scientist or judge in the pursuit of "truth" - should we not give consideration to them ? proving intent is a difficult calculus i also admit when TFL has been shady, don't forget

I know it's a valid concept. You're not applying it correctly. You take obvious facts and spin them in a manner that softens the optics for TFL despite malfeasance being very obvious. As the kids say, all you do is 'psyops'. A key component of which is playing both sides.

I'm only providing the agnostic end, and hope readers will take both yours and mine into consideration they look like psyops cuz you're a little exteme